Shaping or Conditioning?

[Jason Thurman]

Which carries more weight for you when you're evaluating a golf course, and why?

[Dan Herrmann]

Shaping.

Conditioning can always be changed with the right people and budget.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Shaping
Conditioning is very hard to change with bad shaping Dan
Cheers

[Jason Thurman]

Conditioning can always be changed with the right people and budget.

That's true, but it's also true of shaping (granted it might require more people and a bigger budget).

In my experience, it's pretty easy to anticipate the conditions you'll find at a given course from one year to the next and one season to the next. Considering all the restorations and renovations happening in the last decade or two, I'm not so sure that conditioning changes all that much more frequently than shaping.

We talk about conditions on this site as though they're much more fluid than they really are. In reality, conditioning tends to follow a pretty consistent pattern in a given year at a given course.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jason,

it depends on what you are evaluating.

Back in the early 80's I played Carnoustie for about £4 or £5 pounds. The course was not in good condition but it was a great layout and offered an interesting challenge. Now it costs £147 for adults and £73.50 for juniors to play. Though the condition of the course is better it has been over refined and has lost its rough quality that  links course should have IMO. It is therefore better conditioned but worse in the shaping and now lousy bang for your bucks. It is worse now than in the early 80's for the visiting golfer IMO

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Carnoustie.........Though the condition of the course is better it has been over refined and has lost its rough quality that  links course should have IMO.

Jon makes a very valid point here. When a links becomes a bit too manicured something is lost. The slightly rough/rustic quality is one of the attractions of a links IMO.
As to Dans point that "Conditioning can always be changed with the right people and budget" I don't dispute this but would like to add that in some parts of the globe, as employment legislation has developed over the last few decades, it has become harder to remove the 'wrong' people and replace them with the 'right people'
All the best.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm gonna go ahead and drop some GCA heresy: conditioning is FAR more important than shaping.

Shaping affects the visual experience of a course, and that's nice. I enjoy the look of a "naturalistic" course. I also enjoy the look of a "Raynoresque" course. There are a lot of shaping styles that I like, and they all certainly add something to the course.

But even a course with shaping I'm not particularly fond of can still be a really enjoyable round if the course still has sound strategies at work, provides a comprehensive test of my game, and is in the right condition to bring its playing characteristics to the forefront. I recently played a prototypical "modern" course with squiggly shaping and amoeba bunkers. Truthfully, it's not my favorite look. But none of that mattered, because the hazards were well placed to challenge shots I hit. The conditions were firm and fast and forced me to control my shots or pay the price. The course was a joy to play despite not being especially sexy in photos. The primary thing it had going for it? Conditions that matched the design. The elusive "maintenance meld."

Prioritizing shaping over conditioning is like prioritizing a woman's looks over her personality. Beautiful is great, and there's obviously a point where things become so ugly that it's not worth it. But man, if the personality isn't there, it has a much bigger effect on the relationship's long term interest. Playing a course with conditions that don't reflect its design principles is just a total drag, sort of like dating a wet blanket.

[Dan Herrmann]

All I know is that my club was transformed when a new head greenkeeper took over.  Hanse's intent became apparent and in play.  Sure, it looked great, but it PLAYED great!

[Jud_T]

Jason,

Shaping is about more than an aesthetic style on courses where the ground is used for strategy/hazards.  Of course one needs proper conditioning to be able to utilize the ground as intended...

[Josh Tarble]

I would actually say conditioning as well.  It doesn't have to be perfect but the main thing I like is consistency.  If its gonna be spotty, let it all be spotty...not parts fast firm and dry and parts lush and soggy.  

I would also venture to guess there are a few rare cases that the shaping and field of play are more important and override conditioning.